The petitioners were treated as debtors of the Sargodha Central Cooperative Bank Ltd now represented by Provincial Co-operative Bank (Punjab) Sargodha Branch, and a notice issued to them by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in terms of sections 4 and 5 of the West Pakistan Co- operative Societies and Co-operative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966. The validity of this notice has been assailed through this writ petition on a variety of grounds.
2. It appears, that by means of a sale-deed dated 15th November, 1967 registered on 13th February, 1968 with the Sub-Registrar, Rahimyar Khan, some !And owned by petitioners Nos.l and 2, was alienated by them in favour of the Bank, and they claim that by transfer of this property, the petitioners' entire liability stood cleared and that, therefore, they could not be proceeded against under the Ordinance. The departmental authorities, however, did not accept this contention, and during the pendency of this writ petition, some other immovable property of the petitioners, located in Sargodha District, in pursuance of the provisions of M. L.
0. 241 was attached and on 20th April, 1972 disposed of through auction, and purchased by the newly-added respondents. Under the orders dated 26th April, 1972, passed by this Court, confirmation of the auction was stayed and accordingly, it has not been confirmed, so far. By virtue of the additional grounds, incorporated in the writ petition, the proceedings under the M. L.
0. 241, have also been called in question.
3. Still another development took place, during the pendency of this writ petition ; the West Pakistan Co-operative Societies and Co-operative Banks (Repayment of Loans) (Punjab Amendment)
Ordinance, 1972 was promulgated on 15th February, 1972 whereby the principal Ordinance was amended and section 9-A introduced therein retrospectively. Under the amended provision, a right of revision has been conferred on the aggrieved party to challenge the orders passed by the Departmental authorities.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examination of the available record, I find that the various contentions raised in this petition, which need not be reiterated, were never urged before departmental authorities. Furthermore, the determination of some of these points, requires investigation of facts. It is also to be noticed, that the Bank is a necessary party but has not been arrayed as a respondent. In the absence of the Bank, it is not possible to give a firm finding on the point, such as the re-payment of entire debt by transfer of land to the bank, of the petitioners.
5. The inclusion of section 9-A in the Ordinance is not without significance. The object is to provide a remedy to the aggrieved person, to seek redresses of his grievances, before a higher forum within the hierarchy of the departmental authorities. Under this provision the revisional authority, is vested with plenary powers, to pass in the matter brought before it, any order deemed just and proper by it, but of course, after hearing the parties. This remedy by no means can be categorized as inadequate.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, has come forth with the submission that the moment the order dated 20th April, 1972 the auction and that would lead to further complication.
He, therefore, prays that in case, the petitioners are to have a recourse to the remedy provided by section 9-A supra, through some interlocutory order, the authorities concerned may be restrained from confirming the auction, in the meanwhile.
7. To ward off the petitioners' this apprehension the learned counsel representing the department, has made a categorical statement at the bar that if the revision petition is brought within one month of this order, the auction shall not be confirmed by the Revisional authority, till the final decision thereof. Obviously, the undertaking given by the learned counsel, would operate as a stay order, against the Registrar on whom, under section 9-A, the powers of the Government have been confirmed.
8. For the foregoing reasons I am of the view that as an adequate alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, the instant writ petition cannot proceed, and is disposed of accordingly but with no order as to costs.
Writ .